In His Incarnation, Jesus Didn’t Know Everything – And This Can Encourage Us

Somewhat of a provoking title, I suppose. But let me flesh this out (no pun intended on Jesus’ humanity).

A few weeks back, I wrote an article on the humanity of Jesus and the nature of temptation for him. Presently, I have been reconsidering some things regarding my Christology (understanding of Christ). Nothing that I believe is unorthodox, but I am rethinking some things in regards to the outworking of Christ’s humanity and incarnation. Anyways, you can read more by following the link.

But this article is obviously connected to the former. And my thesis is that, a) in his incarnation, Jesus did not know everything and b) this can be an encouragement to us.

For Christians, I think it’s very easy to simply say something like this: ‘Jesus was the divine, eternal Son of God. Therefore he knows everything. We have plenty examples of this in the Gospels.’

But I believe that formulating such a theology of Christ’s incarnation as a real human being actually glances over some important statements in the Gospels and having a proper Christology in regards to his incarnation.

The first thing we need to realise is that Jesus actually had to grow in wisdom, meaning he didn’t have all wisdom. Take a look at how Luke puts it:

And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was on him. (2:40)

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. (2:52)

For some, the former verse, 2:40, might seem to suggest Jesus was filled with wisdom in a kind of instantaneous and completed action all at once. But I think 2:52 clarifies that Jesus, as a real human being, had to grow in wisdom. Again, meaning he did not have all wisdom from his birth or baptism or whenever.

It’s simply a matter of fact. And to suggest he had all knowledge and wisdom would seem a bit ridiculous. He was a real baby born in a real world as a real human. Jesus did not have all information on all things. This was part of his kenosis, or emptying-laying aside-not grasping at the privileges of the divine attributes that he shared with the Father such as omniscience (again, more on this in my previous article).

So how did Jesus know so much? I mean, what about that instance with the woman at the well (John 4:1-26)? What about the way Jesus knew the spirit and motivations of people like we find with Nathanael in John 1:43-49 or the murderous spirit in some Jews in John 8:34-38?

Those are good questions. And here is where it starts getting encouraging. Jesus, as a full human, submitting himself to being like us (Heb 2:14; Phil 2:6), lived as a human as God intended, fully relying on the Father in all things. He was an example to us and was able to do what we actually are not able to do fully. That’s why we will find Christ making statements such as this:

Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. (John 5:19)

When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. (John 8:28)

There are plenty of other examples, especially in the Gospel where John states his point is to show that Jesus is the Messiah-Christ and Son of God (John 20:31). But what is coming through all of this is that Jesus was depending absolutely upon the Father – in what he both spoke and did.

So, again, Jesus did not walk around with a download of information in his brain (or spirit) about all things. From birth he had to grow in wisdom (like you and I), and I believe this was a part of his life continuing on into his public ministry. He had to walk with the Father, to hear the Father. And in the more ‘spiritual’ stuff, like receiving words of knowledge and words of wisdom and function in discerning of spirits, he had to hear the Father. Ladies and gentleman, this is the eternal Logos made as a real flesh and bone human being.

Of course, we all know this passage: But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father (Matt 24:36).

If anything, this shows us that Jesus didn’t know everything. Some approach the humanity of Jesus as if this was the only thing he didn’t know, that he kind of blocked out this info with his omnipotence. But I think it unfair to say this is the only bit that Jesus didn’t know in his humanity. The second Adam, to use Paul’s terminology, was like the first Adam before the Fall. Yes, Jesus was perfect in sinlessness, just as the first Adam was pre-Fall. But he did not have perfect knowledge in his incarnation, just as the first Adam would not have held all knowledge on all things but would have had to rely completely on the Father. The second Adam was a fulfilment of the first Adam, but had to submit to the life of the first Adam.

Of course, as Christ listened to the Father, the Father would speak and reveal things. But he had to give time to such, walk such out. Jesus was a real human being and submitted himself to what that meant.

Listen, I believe in all orthodox Christian beliefs – the Triune nature of our God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures co-existing in the Son; the sinless perfection of the Son; etc. But as I have re-engaged with some theology of Christ in his incarnation, starting and primarily looking to ground such a theology in Scripture, I have come to see some very interesting things about Christ’s humanity. But all of this has stirred me and encouraged me as I consider now what it means to follow the one who was the faithful Adam, the faithful Man, the faithful Human.

And so I do believe we can find great encouragement in these things. Jesus, though the Son of God, humbled himself, laid aside his grasp at his omniscience, laid aside his grasp at being served by humanity, and lived as one totally dependent upon the Father and the Father alone. And well-known passages as this come to life even more for me:

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. (Heb 4:15)

He knows. He walked through it. He understands. But he was faithful! And we are drawn to this unique and only Son of God to draw on strength to walk in his steps. And when we fail like the first Adam, for we do and will, the second Adam remains a faithful and merciful high priest, seated on the throne of grace, full of grace and truth.

Post navigation

42 thoughts on “In His Incarnation, Jesus Didn’t Know Everything – And This Can Encourage Us”

Nice one Scott, you’ve offered a good justification of your kenosis model here. The idea that Jesus was like Adam before the Fall is particularly helpful, since it allows him to sidestep the problem of original sin.

Actually, the John 5 quote is out of context.
“So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.” (John 5:19–21)
Jesus actually stated that the Father showed Him all that He was doing. All. That is the Father works (John 5:17) and the Son works. They do what they do hand-in-hand. Whatever the Father does, He shows the Son. Perfect, uninterrupted communion and communication.
How did Jesus know the hearts of men, as we see demonstrated at various times?
If you take omniscience away from Jesus, you take away a divine attribute, and thus, deity.
It was not that Jesus emptied Himself of these things. In fact, John 1:18;3:13 show us that Jesus was still in the very presence of the Father, so His incarnation did not cause omnipresence to cease.
Jesus’ emptying Himself speaks of not clinging to the glories of being worshiped and adored as He was before the incarnation. He became a man of sorrows. Yes, He chose to not exercise His divine attributes from time to time. There’s no doubt about that. To say that they were not in Him and not active would be incorrect.
This is the imbalance that we need to correct. We can overemphasize deity, or we can overemphasize humanity.
We must strive for balance.

a) I didn’t use the John 5:19 passage out of context because my point was that Jesus relied fully on the Father, and this was an example.

b) Do you think that the ALL that was revealed meant that it all came at once with an instantaneous download? [Not to mention that I doubt this verse speaks about mathematics, economics, politics, astronomy, etc.]

c) You didn’t deal with any other verses that actually show Jesus, in his incarnation amongst us, did not know everything.

I think we’re talking past each other. What I’m dealing with is in response to your saying that Jesus did not grasp at omniscience, as though Jesus emptied Himself of it.

I say once again that, Jesus without omniscience is only human. Deny Him the divine attributes and you deny Him deity.

I can certainly accept Jesus as man growing in wisdom and knowledge. I can accept that He did not always exercise His omniscience, but used it at will. I cannot accept the statement that He was not possessed of omniscience.

Peter even stated that Jesus knew all things (John 20:), so we know that He did possess omniscience.

It is not the human side of Jesus that I reject. I reject the stripping of Jesus’ deity which amounts to nothing more than ancient Arianism in modern day clothes. Kenotic Arianism is Arianism none the less. It just has a new look.

You’ve yet to deal with the passages I’ve put up to show he did not have all knowledge.

He was/is omniscient. But he did not grasp at that in his incarnation with us. He could have, but decided to grow in wisdom like us and rely on the Father and even admit he did not know the time of the end of the age.

ScottL,
If you think I’ve not dealt with the verses you mentioned, then you haven’t read carefully.
I said:
“I can certainly accept Jesus as man growing in wisdom and knowledge. I can accept that He did not always exercise His omniscience, but used it at will. I cannot accept the statement that He was not possessed of omniscience.”

If that is not dealing with them, what is it?
The problem here is that you wish to say Jesus was omniscient, yet seem to say that He was not in that He didn’t exercise it while here on Earth.
Again, I don’t mind believing that Jesus learned as a man. To say, on the other hand, as you seem to imply, that He never exercised omniscience is to shear Him of omniscience and to deny His deity.

We know one very definite example of Jesus not having access to a particular piece of information (Matt 24:36). So obviously the Peter statement must be qualified. No?

Yes, Jesus knew people’s hearts, to that I have no doubt. But he was relying on the Father’s input, revelation, leading. He was functioning with words of knowledge, words of wisdom, discerning of spirits. This is why continuationist-charismatics find encouragement by looking at the life of Jesus and how he listened to the Father.

Jesus had access to omniscience as the eternal, divine Son. But he did not grasp at it, but looked to the Father to grow in wisdom, receive revelation, etc, like we are (and the first Adam was) called to. It was not an immediate download.

“He was functioning with words of knowledge, words of wisdom, discerning of spirits.”
A classic example of eisegesis.
Sorry, ScottL, Kenotic Arianism fails the test of orthodoxy.
It also causes you to make an outrageous straw man to demolish with your immediate download bit.
I’ve not denied Jesus looking to the Father. I do deny His setting aside omniscience to the extent that you do.
You’re a nice guy, and I truly like you. It saddens me to see Jesus treated this way, however.

Have you ever studied words of knowledge, words of wisdom, discerning of spirits, these spirit gifts in Scripture? That’s why we can function in them. Because Christ did and the Spirit of Christ does, and now expressed through the body. We only function in ministries and gifts as the body because Christ did.

Read Matt 24:36 and ask if my article title is wrong. Did Jesus know everything in his incarnation?

And I am not Kenotic Arian. That seems that you are suggesting I accept heresy. I don’t. I am orthodox.

ScottL,
When you say you accept Jesus’ omniscience, then deny it using other words, there is nothing else to call it.
The mystery of the incarnation is why Jesus could say that He didn’t know the day and hour of His revelation in the eschaton. It is the same mystery that caused Peter to be able to say that Jesus knew all things.
We cannot compartmentalize and dichotomize Jesus. If we do, we make Him less all around.

Of course I accept Jesus’ omniscience. But I also accept he humbled himself to not grasp at that divine characteristic. One can have a characteristic but decide not to draw upon it. That is what I believe Christ did in his incarnation.

I am fine with mystery. I am very fine with it. This is no easy thing to ponder. But if Christ said he didn’t know the time and we are told he actually had to grow in wisdom, then this implies he was at a place, in his humanity, of not having ALL wisdom. Again, as divine and eternal, he could have drawn on this from his own self. But he decided not to and rather draw upon the Father and Spirit, and actually grow in wisdom like the first Adam, and even you and I. This is not denying his divinity, but considering what it was like for him to actually submit as a human and to become like his brothers.

The Creeds, following Scripture all place Christ as both God and Man, or the God-Man. The Incarnate Christ always knew everything, or what HE wanted or chose to know! The Kenosis does not empty Christ of every or even certain Divine attributes, but places Christ in a place of submission only, this is the essence of Phil. 2:5-11. Anything less places Christ outside of full deity! Note, the two natures are in the One Christ. Christ is dual in nature, not dual in Person, He is God and Man in One!

Scott, see the EO, i.e. Orthodox Christology here, both Nicaea and Chalcedon. 🙂

You said “The Kenosis does not empty Christ of every or even certain Divine attributes, but places Christ in a place of submission only, this is the essence of Phil. 2:5-11. Anything less places Christ outside of full deity!” and ”He humbled himself by becoming obedient..etc.” But He never surrendered total omniscience…for God cannot but always know, having infinite knowledge; even if He voluntarily condescends. For God is always God!”

I don’t think I can agree with this. It sounds like you have an issue with Jesus NOT knowing something and still being God, because God MUST be omniscient to be God. While omniscience certainly is an important attribute of God, but it’s not necessary for God to be omniscient to be God. No more than it’s necessary for God to emit glory (as God the father is seen to do in Scripture) in order for Him to be God. He can lay aside any of His attributes and still be God. His attributes don’t make Him God. God is God and being God allows Him to take on or lay aside whatever attributes He chooses. You attempt to put God (and Christ) in a box of human logic when you require Him to have this or that attribute in order to be fully God.

I believe Jesus chose to lay aside His omniscience (and many of His other godly attributes), relying fully on the Spirit for the knowledge He required (as we are also called to do). In this way He more fully identified with us in our humanity. He EXPERIENCED what it was like to not know the future or to know everyone’s thoughts and motives (except for those the Spirit revealed to Him). In this way He was fully God (while choosing what attributes to use) and fully man (dependent upon the Spirit, as we are).

My points are simply the essence of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea I and Chalcedon, you might want to read some of the Eastern Fathers here, as too the Latin. And even Aquinas. God cannot be God less than His own Attributes! As also, the Text of Phil. 2: 5-8, etc. Note again, the doctrine of the Impeccability of Christ!

I see you continually go back to how OTHER people have decided the incarnation “worked” when arguing your points. While other viewpoints are important for perspective, I choose to let the scripture and His Spirit speak within me together rather than rely on other men for truth.

In any case, the scriptures you quoted do not state that Christ had ALL of God’s attributes. It says He was in the FORM of God (still in essence God), but that he “layed aside” the very things that made God so different than His creation. One of those things that He put aside was His omniscience. He became relient on the Father through the Spirit, just as we, His creation are. To not do so would be to exploit (take an unfair advantage by using) His divinity while here on earth. The verse is reassuring us that Jesus really was a man just like us, albiet with a perfect connection to the Father through the Spirit. It’s a connection that we can also have in those times when the Spirit teaches us or uses us.(although with more difficulty since we still have a sin nature when Christ did not) Speaking in tongues (another language) is an example of this. The Spirit gives knowledge that is not our own and we speak, not even knowing how we are doing it. This is very similar to Jesus knowing the thoughts/motives of those He was speaking to. The SPIRIT had to give Him the knowledge, because He had given up His right to have it (omniscience) on His own.

It’s the same as a king giving up His sceptre (the symbol of His power) and living among His people. While he is still the King, he has given up something that would give Him an unfair advantage should any dispute arise. Just because He is not using the sceptre does not make him any less King. And just because Christ chose not to use His omniscience while on earth doesn’t make Him any less God.

Trying to make Him omnicient, but not REALLY omnicient simply muddies the waters. The scripture seems quite clear to me, regardless of what council said what when.

I am a “Churchman”, perhaps you should check out what that means? And I can see that you are not, nor do you value the Ecumenical Councils nor Creeds, as it so appears. Also, I am not a “Pentecostal”, as you appear to be. We must always check our presuppositions! I am a Creedal and Anglican Christian. This includes the historical church Catholic & Reformed.

And your exegesis is simply flawed in Phil. 2:6, it is “morphe theu” (Gk.) the “form of God”. Here is the preexistence of Christ, the eternal Son. It appears your doctrine of Christ is simply not Biblical! For Christ is NOT just like us, yet without sin. He is God & Man in ONE person! As Paul says, Christ, or the “Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.” (Rom. 8:3) His “likeness” in the flesh is the Incarnation itself, fully “human”, and yet always fully God! Note, I maintain, as the Holy Scripture in the Impeccability of Christ, Christ as the God-Man simply could not sin!

Robert, what is with all the labels? “Churchmen”, “Ecumenical”, “Pentecostal”, “Creedal”, “Anglican”, “Catholic”, “Reformed”? Seriously, do these labels make you feel more secure in your faith? Do they provide you with an “I’m a better believer” than you are status? I gotta say it’s kinda scary.

All I really KNOW is Christ, and Him crucified. All this talk about exactly how God became a man and died for me is just that, TALK. It’s fun, but it doesn’t make one iota of difference in regards to my eternal security, which was decided the moment I accepted His sacrifice on my behalf. On judgement day, the only thing that I will say is “I trust in Jesus”, not explain my doctrinal position.

Well first off, I am 62 years old, so I am perhaps a bit more serious minded than many Christians today. And with that I am also an old theolog myself. I was in the academy myself, though years back. I lived and taught theology and philosophy in Israel in the mid and late 90’s. I have both the D. Phil. and Th.D. So theology is not a game for me, but is part of the life-line of the Church Catholic & Historical! Note, I am an Anglican priest/presbyter. And I was a Ax-bishop for a time also.

Actually we live in a day when Judeo-Christian theology is even more important than many Christians realize, and especially when we grapple with the mystery of God and Christology. And we simply must define the Church of God today! With the so-called “emergent” evangelicals, this is ever needed! And we should note here too, both the depth of postmodernity, and the new atheist enemies! But perhaps the worst is the new secular ideas and attitudes in the very Church itself!

Enjoyed the article and agreed with it except in one point. I don’t agree that we can ever presume against the authenticity of someone’s faith based on their disagreement with a doctrinal position regarding the incarnation (or most any other doctrine, for that matter). As long as they acknowledge Christ as a man and as God’s only begotten Son, and cling to His work on the cross as their only means of acceptance into God’s heaven, there is nothing else that need be known and agreed upon.

Setting oneself up (or other’s up) as the definer or guardian of “right doctrine”, and using that yardstick to measure anyone else’s faith is to stand in a place of judgement. A place not right for any man. For we cannot see into a man’s heart and determine His feelings for Christ. Even if his doctrinal ideas may not be “correct”, it is the attitude of humility and love of Christ that God sees and which the Spirit testifies of, far above any correct mindedness in regards to doctrinal issues.

I know this kind of thinking is thought of as heretical in certain cirlces, but I declare it… Relationship FIRST, doctrine AFTER. A vibrant relationship with the Spirit can correct wrong doctrine (or overlook it for the sake of grace) over time and with great patience, but doctrine (no matter how correct) cannot lead you into a relationship with Christ. The relationship MUST come first. All else will follow as God sees fit.

One thing is certain, the Church of Christ would never have survived without Doctrine & Dogma! Note the dogmatic nature of the Church in the second and third centuries. Christian people were willing to die for doctrinal truth! I wonder today who in the church would be willing to incense Caesar as god, just to maintain the status quo? It seems to me the so-called church sells or peddles the gospel daily! (2 Cor. 2: 14-17)…The true Gospel has its own truth and fragrance, but note verses 15 & 16: “For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to the one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.”

I agree with your article, Scott. However, rather than coming up with some mystery connection between God the Father and Christ, wouldn’t it make more sense to simply accept that Jesus had a constant connection with the Spirit, similar, but on a more intimate level than we as Christians ourselves have. It was the Spirit who revealed to Him whatever knowledge He required at any time, while hiding from Him knowledge which He did not require (but of course, it was His CHOICE to have this hidden). So, while He COULD have known anything He desired to know, He allowed Himself to be “in the dark” on certain matters. Make sense?

Good thoughts here! We are indeed on the ground of “mystery” here, and we simply must be careful! I too feel or believe that Christ chose to set his full omniscience in the, or to his “submission”. But the true “kenosis” is in his willingness to submit, even when ‘HE knew’! Here is true surrender! (Again see carefully Phil. 2:6-7-8..especially verse 8…”He humbled himself by becoming obedient..etc.” But He never surrendered total omniscience…for God cannot but always know, having infinite knowledge; even if He voluntarily condescends. For God is always God! Note here I follow both the EO, Orthodox and Roman Catholic creedal positions. And I would also follow the Impeccably of Christ! (Heb. 7:26)

Btw, we simply cannot negate or leave out the Ecumenical Councils, the early Church only engaged in a “theology” that was in both the traditions and the revelations of its leaders & prophets! And this was to some extent anonymous, but with the authority of the Holy Spirit! But we simply cannot leave out the Greek mind, and the Greek conception of reason; it is here that we really find St. Paul and his Jewish-Hellenistic culture: some of the ground of the NT Revelation! (Gal. 4:1-6, etc.)…note verse 6, in a Trinitarian manner!

I think what you suggest is good and could be a possibility of how it all played out. It think the practical way it outworked between the Father, Son and Spirit is mystery to us at this point (and maybe for eternity). But what you suggest is a possibility.

The problem here is how we define Christ’s “kenosis”, for me as the Councils & Creeds and Holy Scripture, Christ could NOT remove His “omniscience”, but in His humanity He could obscure and somewhat conceal it, but again we must not draw lines between His divinity & His humanity, for they are always in ONE Person since the Incarnation!

And let me be clear I’m not at all dogmatic about this being how it was. It’s just a theory that makes sense to ME when I read the scriptures. Like you said, it’s not something we will know in this life, and in heaven, we probably won’t care anymore.

I don’t disagree with you. I never would say Jesus got rid of his omniscience, but that he did not draw upon his own divine attributes (though he had them), but looked to the Father and Spirit.

I was only recently thinking about Jesus’ prayer to the Father of who his closest followers would be. It wasn’t instantaneous knowledge he already had. He looked to his Father to instruct him in his choosing.

Scott: The problem with your view, is that you submerge much of Christ’s divinity & power with some kind of position that His humanity alone was His place of life and power. But in reality Christ was always both God & Man in ONE person! We can key in on certain issues in His life of both humanity and divinity, but in effect HE was always both God & Man, or the God-Man. This must be the constant theological position, as both Holy Scripture and Council & Creed. Note, I am seeking the full historical process, in both Scripture & Council/Creed.

“Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death –
even death on a cross… etc.” – New Revised Standard Version

ScottL – Excellent article. Thank you for writing it. I too find comfort in knowing that our Savior and Lord, while never relinquishing his divinity, experienced our weaknesses, because for a time he occupied a fully-human body.

Ken Nichols – You obviously have an unpretentious heart for God. It is a beautiful thing that the gospel can speak to and appeal to all, including those like my sweet, uneducated grandmother who never had a clue about the meaning of “kenosis” or knowledge of the Ecumenical Councils. But who loved Jesus more than anyone I’ve known and lived a life devoted to him. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved.”

The foregoing discussion would not be complete without acknowledging that Jesus was born with an undeveloped human brain incapable of logical thought, let alone self-awareness. Was he any less God during that time of his life? Of course not, and yet he chose to subject himself to that restriction of humanity. And then we must ask, when and how did Jesus come to know that he was God? Further, was he conscious as he slept? It is interesting to contemplate these questions. But since God chose not to reveal the answers in Bible revelation, we must conclude that they are not important. As a supporting point, the entire Gospel of John, which he wrote “…that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” does not even mention the virgin birth. Isn’t knowledge of the virgin birth important to being saved? It seems the answer must be “no.”

Finally, I must say, we cannot put God is a box. “Ps 115:3 Our God is in heaven;
he does whatever pleases him.”

And then this: “Job 38:2 ‘Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?’
Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.
Job 38:5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?
Job 38:6 On what were its footings set, or who laid its cornerstone—
Job 38:7 while the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?’
Job 40:1 The LORD said to Job:
Job 40:2 ‘Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!’
Job 40:3 Then Job answered the LORD?
Job 40:4 ‘I am unworthy—how can I reply to you?
I put my hand over my mouth.’ “

I must say, as it being over five years since I joined in this discussion, it’s interesting to see how much my beliefs have changed over time. In 2011 I was just starting on a path of religious deconstruction, a simplifying of my faith, as it were. Where I stand now is MILES (theologically speaking) from where I was at that time. In fact, the me of 2011 would likely call the me of now a heretic.

But I still firmly belief my “salvation” (healing/wholeness) comes from none other than Christ and His work on the cross. All the rest of it, as I was beginning to believe in 2011, is nice to discuss, and can give us some clearer insights into the heart of Jesus/God, but it isn’t necessary for a genuine faith (trust) in God. It’s not specifically WHAT we believe, but what that belief does to us and through us, to the world, that really counts.

Thank you Scott. I completely agree with what you said. In no way did you say that Jesus was not God or have any of the attributes of God. Only that He chose to live completely dependent on God the Father in all things including omniscience. The responses left seem to me that they are not understanding that you are basically saying the same thing that they are saying. It makes my head hurt.